Court OKs Online Sex Offender Postings

GINA HOLLAND

Published 7:00 pm, Tuesday, March 4, 2003

Associated Press Writer

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can post sex offenders' photos and other personal information on the Internet, a step the states say is aimed at protecting people from criminals living nearby.

In a key first test of "Megan's law" provisions that are on the books in every state, the justices said sex-offender registries are not an unconstitutional extra punishment for offenders who already have served their sentences.

"The publicity may cause adverse consequences for the convicted defendants, running from mild personal embarrassment to social ostracism," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 6-3 decision.

But the laws are intended, he said, "to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

About 35 states have Internet listings now, most of them featuring pictures, and the court's ruling may encourage more.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a dissent joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, said listing people as registered sex offenders "calls to mind shaming punishments once used to mark an offender as someone to be shunned," like branding a murderer with the letter "M."

Kennedy compared the Internet listings to paperwork being kept in a government office, but said it is just more easily accessible. Kennedy said it was not like requiring "an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality."

The contested Alaska registry puts offenders' pictures on the Web along with information about where they live and work and what kind of car they drive. Repeat offenders must report to police every 90 days, notifying authorities when they grow a beard or change their appearance.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who provided the third vote against Alaska's law, said offenders have lost their jobs, their homes and been threatened after being listed. He said the law wrongly punishes people who served prison time for sex crimes before the Alaska registration law was passed.

In a separate case, the court rejected a challenge from sex offenders who argued they deserved a chance to prove they are not dangerous in order to avoid being put in the registries.

The court ruled 9-0 that Connecticut did not have to hold separate hearings to determine the risk posed by sex criminals who have completed their prison sentences before putting them in a registry. That state's Web site says officials have not determined if any of the offenders are dangerous.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing the ruling, said the case did not give the court the appropriate avenue to decide whether Connecticut's law violates offenders' substantive due process rights.

"The court has made a very powerful and compelling statement about the need for objective, accurate information being as available as possible," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.

Philip Tegeler, an attorney with the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, said the court's technical ruling does not address the rights of people "who are being denied the opportunity to clear their name."

The decisions came in the Supreme Court's first review of what are known as Megan's laws, named for 7-year-old Megan Kanka. The New Jersey girl was kidnapped, raped and killed in 1994 by a convicted sex criminal who lived in her neighborhood.

"The justices have decided the safety of our children will not be eclipsed by the rights of sexual predators," said Laura Ahearn, director of Parents for Megan's Law.

Wednesday's decisions were a victory for law agencies that track predators, but the court left open the door for future constitutional challenges.

Stevens said that in both rulings his colleagues "fail to decide whether the statutes deprive the registrants of a constitutionally protected interest in liberty."

The cases are Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe, 01-1231, and Otte v. Doe, 01-729.